i want to do all of that, and i hope that -- >> i hope i'm wrong. i hope you're right. >> well, i appreciate the opportunity to try to work it out, at least to try to work it out in the book and an ongoing dialogue. >> thanks so much. it's always amazing to talk to you about these things coming and i know a lot of people are listening who appreciate your clarity. >> i appreciate being here with you as well. so thanks to you as well. ..

on the upper right side of the page. david reports on where the trillions of dollars that make up the u.s. federal budget comes from and where the money goes. this is about an hour. [applause] >> brad, you're doing great. i was thinking maybe i'd let you talk. i'd find out the interesting parts of the book. it's god to be here at one of the most independent bookstores, politics and prose. assured that brad not all my friends these people that are my friends. these are people that think about the budget august, which i think it's heartening. i wanted to talk about how the book came to be. my agent is here talked about to

me once about doing the budget and the editors at random house would published the book i did on the fed, said to me, well the fed was boring and you made that interesting. the budget is boring, can you make that interesting? making the fed tweeting in 2008 we were ability to tumble into the great depression. there's nothing going on with a budget. a supercommittee is noting? i'd read let alone want to write. then they said, what if do you do a year in the life of the budget. you could start with it being crafted behind the scenes in the white house and the president presents the budget and congress acts on the budget and the money goes out the door. i said, that's not the way it works. they said really? and so i began to think, maybe i did know something that could be useful and i brought with me to the conversation some of the charts that peter peterson

foundation did on the budget. he devoted $1 billion to deal with the foundation of the budget. i'm not sure he's made progress on the policy front. he's made lot of good charts. ame employed a lot ofgraphic artists. i began to realize going through the charts and my editors realize there was a market for a book that just explained where the money comes from and where it goes. and as i thought about that, i thought, well, it's a good idea. this is a book i can do quickly, i was cocky about how quickly. and i thought i'm going write a book about the federal budget for people who have never managed to get to the end of any "the wall street journal" story on the subject. [laughter] and i have the naïve hope that maybe i can play a small role in separating fact from opinion. i think what has beened in a lot

of budget discussion, people have mixed up what the facts are, what the reality is, and what choices we have to make. the choices are fundamentally in the very best sense of the word political. they have to do with the value and how big of government we want to have. the nature of success in our economy and so forth. but what's happened is people start with a set of positions and then they build a set of facts that support them, and then they never let the other side of facts interfere with the argument. if you watch one cable channel you get one set of facts and you watch another and you'd get another fact. it's unfashionable to be writing a book that i do not have a solution to the budget crisis. this is not in chapter five year is not david's version of bowls simpson. but the role of a journalist is to say look, it isn't to complicated. let's break it down.

it is hard to understand because it's so big. the instructions that the white house sends out to the agencies to tell tell them how to submit request fur the president's budget run to 972 pages. the budget itself four printed volume, you can read them free online, 2 238 pages. my favorite is department of homeland security which submitted a phone of pages to justify their pages. one for every $12.6 million think wanted to spend. the the budget is big 3.6 trillion a year. $400 million a day. $17 million an hour. and dave berry who used to write for the miami herald he is really good at this. the reason people don't understand it is millions,

billions and trillions sound too much alike. [laughter] if we called them golf balls, watermelons and balloons inspect is something to that. so in the book, i try and break the budget in to the big pieces in to die jectble morsels. i want to talk about a couple of them here today before we turn to questions. one is that when congress shows up every year, they already submitted about two-thirds of the money. 63% of the money that was spent by the federal government last year was committed to various benefit programs, medicare, social security, medicaid, farm subsidizes, veterans, interest on the debt. and they spent basically the rest of the year arguing about everything else. what this means is that they're never forced to confront how much do we want to spend on retire programs and health care benefits. what is the right amount of farm subsidizes in modern economy.

it's automatically baking the cake. only if there is reason to reopen the bill, which sometimes there is do they make any changes. an economist named gene who used to be with the treasury in the reagan years is now at the urban substitute pointed out in 2009, for the first time, every single dollar is tax revenue had been committed before congress arrived. so the rest -- all the money that the tax code brought in went to cover benefits and interest on the debt. all the money we spent on everything else, defense, discretionary stuff was borrowed. man that's one thing. that's a big change from the past. the second thing is, it's related, is the one thing that is rising faster than everything else in the federal budget is health care. that's because the government covers more people every year, and because the cost of health care is going up faster than almost everything else.

in 1960, before medicare and medicaid, the programs that insured the elderly, the disabled and the poor, 9.5 percent of the federal budget went to health care. last year it was 25%. and we're on course even with the affordable care act according to the congressional budget offs to hit 33.by 2021. this is an exertble fact. you can argue about whether -- how we should change it and it's certainly a fact that we don't have the world east healthiest population by far, even though we spend more on health care. but you can't escape the fact. i'm struck by in a town where democrats and republicans basically can't agree on what time it is. this is some kind of consensus health care is a big part of the problem. another big chunk of the federal budget is defense. we spend $700 billion on defense last year.

$700 billion. that's more than the combined defense budgets of china, britain, france, russia, japan, saudi arabia, germany, india, italy, brazil, south korea, australia, canada, turkey, spain and israel. it our defense budget is bigger than the defense budget of the next 17 countries combined. i don't think that's sustainable. there are some big choices to be made here about what extent do we want to be the cops of the world. what is important to for us to keep the sea lains oil for everyone that depends on. do we want to be able to send people into libya or somalia or syria or when ever. there are big buck item theres. one of the -- i think the trouble with the defense budget. it's developed a set of facts and speech and concepts that

outsiders can't understand. so in the book i tried to take one thing the defense department has to decide. how much aircraft carriers are enough? so congress in the wisdom has told the pentagon they have to have 11 aircraft carriers. they have a special permission to have 10 for awhile while building a new one. they want to replace each of the aircraft it has over one over every five years for the rest of my life. each -- these new aircraft carriers, which are huge, the navy calls them 4.5 acres of moble search territory. they cost $11 billion. it is the same amount that medicare will spend on all the hip, knee, and shoulder surgery on 700,000 medicare beneficiary. when you do the scale, one aircraft carrier 700,000 joint

replacement. that's not the worse of it. when they take one of these things out of commission, it costs $2 billion. aircraft carriers are intensive even in death. each one has two nuclear reactor. disassembling that is expensive. we have decisions to make on how big defense budget we want to . brad mentioned a couple of misconsumptions people have. another one is all the money that the government spends goes to pay bureaucrats. most who think adopt do a good job. now it is true that the federal government employs a lot of people. 4.4 million people. most of them either in the defense department in military or civilian or in one of the various homeland security app ratted us. if we fired every single one of them from president obama's secretary to the person collecting tolls at yellow

stone, to the guy sitting -- or woman sitting in some norad air defense facility in north dakota right now. if we got rid of all of them, all their wages and benefits, we would save a lot of money. $435 billion last year. that wouldn't have reduced the deficit by even 0%. we would have still had almost a record deficit if we had no federal government employees whatsoever. so where does the money go? well, the federal government in a sense takes a lot of money and sends it out again. the federal government in a sense is a military with a big health and welfare and retire fund attached to it. $2.2 trillion of the money that came in to the federal government last year went out in the form of benefits to individuals of some kind and much of the rest went in state and local grants to state and local governments. so it is not going to be

possible to reduce the federal deficit by nickel and diming federal employees. doesn't mean we're not going try. we're not going succeed. another misconception people have is that we are paying more and more taxes and that we are paying more and more taxes than people in other countries. i think a lot of people particularly in the room appreciate that americans have a smaller government than those in most developed country. we pay less and get less of the services from the government than they do in for instance northern europe. but i think what's less understood is for a variety of reasons, the share of income this people at the middle of the middle class have paid in taxes has been coming down steadily for thirty years. in 1979, people in that middle the middle 20 percent paid about 19% of their income in taxes of all kinds to the federal government according to congressional budget office. in 1999, twenty years later, it

was down to 17%. last year, in 2007, before the recession hilt, it was about 14%. and last year, partly because of the recession people's incomes were depressed it was down to 12% because of the special tax break. typical american family has been paying less in taxes every year as a share of their income even though the government has been spending more money every year as a share of their income. so where is the money coming from? we are borrowing it. last year we borrowed 36 cents of every dollar we spent. most from abroad, half of that from the chinese. at the bottom, a serious of policy, many of them pursued by republicans as well as democrats have gradually light end the tax load at people at the bottom. last year 46% of american households did not pay any income taxes. 46%.

that was swollen by the recession. in ordinary times it's 40%. it a lot of them paid payroll tax social security and medicare for most working americans is a bigger tax than the income tax. but even with that, about a fifth of all americans didn't pay either payroll or income taxes. they didn't make enough money, they were elderly people living on social security, they took advantage of one of the myriad set of tax breaks for people who are low wage workers or big families or other dedurvetion. some were probably well off, some ripped off the system. most of them did not. so if you want to think about the federal budget, you have to naibt those three things. what are we going do about health care? what are we going about defense? what are we going about revenues? almost everything else is a detail. if you get those three things, you'll have begun to put the pieces together. now, the deficit today is

enormous. bigger than we've had almost any time in the history when we weren't fighting a world war. the deficit today is not a problem. the u.s. government is borrowing almost unlimited amounts of money at extraordinarily low interest rates. they borrowing today ten year money at 1.5%. it's a record low. it's never been that low since the government has been borrows as far as the record we have go. the problem we have now, the acute problem we have now, of course, is unemployment. 8.3% unemployment. more than 3 million people who have been out of work for a full year or more. those are the ones who say they are looking. the deficit is not today's problem. but it's going to be tomorrow's problem. even at today's low interest rate. they spent a ton of money on interest. that's the same -- that's bigger than the combined budget of the

departments of commerce, education, energy, homeland security, interior justice, state, plus the federal courts. so how is it that we're able to borrow so much money and pay so little interest on it? why aren't we like spain, or italy or greece? it's certainly not because we well manage our finance or have a political system that seems ton marvel of e efficiency of comprise. it's the rest of the world looks even worse. the united states is the world's tallest mijtd when it comes to borrowing none. [laughter] if this could go on forever, it would be fantastic. it is not going on forever. i have no clue when it's going end. it is not going go on forever. last -- in -- as interest rates return to normal, the share of the federal budget, the ghost of interest is going to rise and

that crowd out spending on other things. it'll mean we'll pay taxes, and we'll borrow money and some of the money we borrow will pay interest on the money we borrowed last year and some of the tax we pay will pay interest to our creditors. and those credit or its are increasingly overseas. in 1990, 19% of the federal debt was held by foreigners. 19%. last year it was 46%. already. so that means we will be working harder and for our economy grows we will have more tax revenues and a little share of each of our paychecks will pay interest on the debt mainly to the chinese. which is really weird with you think about it. here's a country with a standard of living as far below ours. they manage to save incrediblability amounts of money largely because the government makes them. and they use it to lend to us in fact they were generous, they allowed us to have a housing bubble and borrow the money so we would run up the value of the

houses so we can a big crisis we find ourself in the situation rein today. it can't go on forever. it just can't. and sometimes people are asked, when when it going to stop when the chinese going to stop lending money? it's a great question with no answer. if you know something is not going go on forever, it seems prudent not to plan on it going on forever. but right now, we are on a course to become the world's largest sub prime borrower and we don't have a business plan to avoid that. now, one of the -- there are no too many heroes in the book. this one didn't lend itself to that. one of them is doug, who is a economist who head of the congressional budget office. the congressional budget office is a remarkable institution. perhaps one of the few institutions in washington that works the way it's supposed to

work. it's actually functioning. it was created largely in rebellion of the congress trying to take control from richard an ex son to give them independent advice and honest figures on the federal budget on federal spending. it's done just that. and doug has said, and he is trying to talk sense into the bosses in congress -- fortunately he's not paid for perform. he said a couple of things that are relevant. one, we can't go back to the tax and spending policy of the past because the number of people 65 and older over will increase by one-third between 2012 and 2022. the number of people over age 65 will increase by one-third over the next ten years. that's the aging of the baby boom. the idea that we were going fix the budget deficit social security, do something about med caver before the baseball booms started collecting it over.

they are now turning 65. and so we are going have to have a bigger government than we had in the past despite what you hear from some candidates, mainly republicans who think we can go back to something we had before. it's of course, possible to go back to a smaller government, but extraordinarily difficult in a society like ours to tell people we are not going keep the promise the to pay benefits to the elderly we decided we wanted a smaller government. that goes to a second point, which i think is one of the best observations, the best summary of federal budget crisis? a single sentence. this country faces, he says, fundament disconnect between the services the people expect the government to provide, primarily format of benefits to elderly, about tax revenue that people are willing to send to the government. and that dilemma, that con there diction at the root of our budget crisis right now. now, i have been criticized i

guess i mentioned earlier for not endings my book with a plan to say this is how we ought to get out of. there are plenty of plans out there. i think the problem we have is that we are unable to face the facts we have the luxury of not having to face them right now, because we're able to borrow so readily, and we have even by american political standard an extraordinarily polarized political system. what changes this? i can come up with two possibles for what changes this. one is a crisis, maybe a financial crisis where the bond market rebels, europe suddenly gets the acted together and the chinese decide they have more money in euros man dollars. -- reach a compromise on a

better reduction scheme. maybe that'll do it. i'm happy to talk about that in the questions. app sudden outbreak of leadership. [laughter] i think i'm betting on the crisis being more likely. leadership can come from strange places. i am gla ross perot was not elected president. i think he played a constructive role in the case in forcing the candidates to stop treating one liners and deal with some legitimate issues. it would be nice if something like that happened again. it's not going to happen in this election. there's a petition going one of the debates will be dedicated to here's the deficit, we'll agree on what the number is. what the target is for reducing it over the next decade, tell us how you reduce it. so we can compare the romney plan to the president obama --

blawm plan. another semihero in the book is panetta who is an extraordinary man. he came to washington during the nixon years, he is eu7, he was working for a republican in congress who lost wasn't conservative enough for california, and he then went to work in the nixon administration and he had the great -- you can decide whether it was fortunate or misfortune to be put in charge of the department of school segregation task force. at the time when nixon promised others in south they wouldn't enforce school desegregation rules. he ended up getting fired and writing a book about that. i had no idea. he later became chairman of the house budget committee in the years there was an agreement between democrats and the president to reduce the deficit. he was in the clinton white

house in the four years when we ran a surplus which seems like a long time ago. it was a long time ago. he went on to be director of the cia and defense department against people who want to do what he would have done when he was at the house budget committee. [laughter] but he does have a lot of perspective, and i talked to him for the book in the office about the pentagon which is cool. it has a shrine there to the capture of bin laden. and he told me that in the twelve years he was out of office when he was teaching at an substitute in california he said i used to tell the students we are either governed by leadership or by crisis. and i always thought if leadership wasn't there, that ultimately you rely on crisis to drive decisions. and last few years, he said, chuckling he likes to laugh at his own jokes. my biggest concern that crisis

doesn't seem to drive decisions either. there goes my theory. on there i would like to end. i'm happy to take your questions. i want to recognize briefly my wife. anybody who has written a book nows the worst thing is for the spouse who has to put up with someone who can't sleep at night and always crabby. there a question here and i've been asked if people have questions to come to the microphone so they can be recorded. >> hi. >> hi. [inaudible] is the number you mentioned at the beginning people were on

medicare or social security thought they were not receiving government benefits. the republican plan -- leaving the cost aside for the minute. the republican plan would slash medicare and people would get fewer services. that's the republican idea that we get too many services, and that people should only get what they can afford. if the obama campaign were too explain that, do you think it would change anything? do you think it would shift votes from the republicans to the democrats if people realized what is going happen to medicare even if it didn't happen to them and only to their children? >> it's a good question. and i don't know the answer. i can -- let me make two observations. one is that neither campaign has done a good job of explaining medicare and medicaid in their plans for health care in a way that makes sense to everybody.

i think both camps are loobility too much on the free lunch school for me. we're going to make health care more efficient and everybody can have all the health care they want and need and no one will say no to them. i don't think that's realistic. the obama camp, i think has kind of taken a pass on medicare, and they have all the cuts that proprose would hit providers. they don't propose much to beneficiary. the republicans want to turn it not the way -- voucher thing and not make the voucher as much as today's health care actually cost and hope that by that process you can narrow it down. i do think that if one campaign or the other convinces people that the opponent is going gut medicare, that would win you votes. that's true, but i'm not sure that either campaign is doing us any favor if they tell us that we can have a pain-free solution

to health care cost growth. because i don't think we can. >> i can. but that's for another time. >> okay. >> sir? >> starting with the idea of that medicare is catastrophically underfunded, 40, $50 trillion under according to the accounting system that they require employers to use. and it's going squeeze out everything including defense, and it's not a-- [inaudible] it doesn't it would be the same copay and deductible. >> different premium. in some cases. >> it is not more like medicaid or any other kind. so two questions. why would democrats basically demagogue cuts in medicare. i should be paying ten times of

the deductible. why would they demagogue that and let medicare gut every other program they care about? ..

>> we have to be really efficient with government because health care will inevitably be a larger and larger slice of what government spends. we have to restrain the growth of health care there are seeds with the affordable care act and on the republican side.

we will have to implement and ration health care to do that. least three people in the audience are four more expert. if i get more questions, i will call on them. [laughter] >> why after starting the beast why both administrations make it bigger and bigger? i came to the answer. i have read -- have not read the book. maybe the answer is there. to cut the consumption of a commodity you raise the price. conversely if you lower the price you increase consumption. i submit by cutting taxes you make government cheaper.

people think i can get more government for the same price. there is a paradox to cut the cost of government you make it cheaper so it is not surprising people want more government? >> i think the reason is it was so easy to borrow money and we did not have to pay for it. that is the difference. they have to pay 7% and in with a 2% inflation rate that it's a good deal. one supply-siders who worked for the editorial page for "the wall street journal" of which i do not work. [laughter]

he popularized the santa claus theory the democrats are suited for the role of spending santa claus and republicans should be santa claus of tax reduction. they have failed to stick to that they love cutting taxes, and 1976, it causes the g.o.p. to be hypnotized by the unbalanced budget playing into the hands of the democrats that no successful politics is do not shoot santa claus. [laughter] one theory is the star of the beast theory. that was part of the reagan did penetration plan. reagan said cut the government allowance.

i am not sure only for your reasons but because the relentless pressure to spend more very few want to. even tea party spending less in principal. when you can bother the difference -- are the difference there is no pressure. i will give shorter answers. [laughter] >> it is symbolic washington national's have the mascot called screech. [laughter] with the affordable health care act nobody can be denied health care if they cannot make the co-pay.

many say if it is an emergency go to the emergency room. also labor and tight restrictions that is a huge problem. and wonder if you could comment about the reportable income of persons in government who have to report on either side. and what their taxes would be if increased proportionately on 250,000. >> i am not shirk? >> this governor romney does not pay enough although warren buffett does not because he does not take a salary.

>> you are going somewhere else. based on what the employee makes not a lot make on their own some are married enough to be hit by the $250,000 threshold. my plan every member of congress should fill out his own tax return without turbotax. [laughter] people decried the complexity but yet look at the tax returns and a number are taking advantage of every possible loopholes, exclusion and deductible. the issue with taxes is if you are really rich the tax code provides a first

oilfield and if income is more with capital gains and dividend you are taxed at a lower rate. i don't think mitt romney is on a tax plan but either believes in the tax proposals or he will win the election. but they are doing things to benefit their own pocket book. i don't think that is the case. >> what is a true loopholes verses justified exclusion? >> that is a great point*. my loopholes is your justified exclusion. my favorite, i understand

the social purpose to have a depreciation tax break for people who own the nascar race track. [laughter] that was set to expire but the senate finance committee is now extending it. also the like kind exchange reviews sell property at a profit but then turned the money on another piece of property you don't have to pay capital gains tax read away. this dates back through the twenties but now is stretched the 81 to sell something you put it into something else. with the antique cars and to

explain if you did the right thing to pass those on to their kids and not pay taxes at all. so if you do it right you can sell the dental practice in by the vacation property. [laughter] but the irs says livestock of the opposite sex are not alike kind exchange. [laughter] i went to be the one who ships from spending to the revenue question. a simple question i cannot determine an answer. since 1980 for the mid-70s

did mid-60s had they remained that way what was the situation in the? >> igo have an answer. if we had more tax revenue we would have a smaller deficit. what would the economy be like with the same tax rates from today? but i will answer a question you did not ask. if fire then today the answer is yes and you can see that from the 1990's.

>> i but like to ask a simple question. [laughter] what is the real tax hike? with a complicated tax system and for example, on page 113 it is with income-tax is. >> that is not right. >> on page 113 is the cbo average tax rate of federal taxes of all kind. excise, payroll, income. >> i misunderstood.

i am sorry. i have not studied it that well. thinking it is so complicated few of us appreciate it. but the invoice from the employer but the hidden benefits and the payroll tax is just a part of the employer contribution and it if you are self-employed you appreciate more. but apparently and misunderstood it includes all taxes? >> also page 106 table showing payroll taxes

including medicare? >> let me explain. the chart goes back to 1940 income-tax, a corporate income-tax and other things. the payroll tax is the ever greater share. because we raise taxes on social security but invented medicare in the '60s. that is financed in part by the payroll tax. >> it struck me that a worker who has sufficient exemptions may not have been the income-tax but pays 15% oration say the government receive 15%. >> not necessarily.

>> with both contribution of medicare and social security tax. >> in the list of mistake to think only of income-tax is. most working americans pay more if you include the employer's share. one-fifth of households don't pay either because they did not work or they decided we don't want to give people money and call it spending. but tax cuts are very kosher. if you have a choice they would rather give a tax credit. so the government has

programs that reduces payroll tax at zero been gives money back. it looks like but tax cut which convolutes the conversation so you don't know what the hell they are doing. >> that explains lowest quintile. >> the next question? >> i eight need a clarification. i observed because it is on the increase. i see government to increase seeing, not directly but in directly.

>> i don't think that the state or local level they increase anything. they're letting contractors and employees go because they're under pressure. and order to keep employees down the government relies more on contracts. maybe they used to be employees. people tried to do that shows how many do things together. but you are correct. >> i am clear now. >> at least you are 1%. [laughter] i should stop now. >> will not challenge to. providing me insight just a

couple of observations, you mentioned a lack of leadership. anything fills the gap including the media. >> i thought i know where you were going. >> guy hardie believe in a free press my father is 72 and people here are older. we'll receive some fairness that we would all sacrifice something if we just knew we were being treated fairly. to think i am going back to south dakota.

[laughter] i will disagree little bit. maybe whistle security and medicare they want to be treated fairly but with their kids and grandkids. that cost will be felt not by the retiree is but those who are retired. this is hard you have to tell people somebody gets less and somebody will pay more. i hope the economy grows fast but hope pallone will not fix the problem. sosa disses have to have some trust in government.

>> the government passed to earn back the trust before we can solve this which is like a bridge to nowhere is important. people think the money is being wasted part extra campaign contributions will pay higher premiums. >> i feel they are beholden first to the rest of the people. >> what can be done to stop it? what can we do. [laughter] >> there are some members of

congress that said they would not abide by the grover norquist pledge because he thought the pledge to support the constitution end to a zero for that. i am glad people want to change it but that role so when may make choices that is all i tried to do do. >> >> i like your observation we have the implicit bargain with the rest of the 17 countries to spend less on

defense being the policemen of the world. because thinking countries by sir plus bond. if we cut defense that% of gdp requiring the other 17 to contribute more with joint police maybe the unintended consequence they would be less inclined? >> it could be. one could treat is the chinese they could look at us as the adversary with the exception of the sea lions open for oil. there is a synergy.

rebecca said why it is david being so nasty to the midgets? [laughter] i have nothing against a midget's. >> they do for a wonderful talk. you have spokane quite a bit about congress but it strikes me the presidential budget proposal is so mythical. why it has become a fake document and use the obama with inaccurate budget is there any hope to make that meaningful? >> it is a political document and if something has gone wrong in the system where the president looks at

the budget is in a long negotiation. there is a shot after the election that is the moment to put down and on this proposal but actually has not found its way into the budget. thank you very much. [applause] >> i am reading three books this summer. i plan to travel then i plan

to re-read the books. one is called a cross the bridge i want to read it to seek but another book is about lyndon johnson. i met with him on more than one occasion. but when he signed the voting rights 1965. 47 years ago. to read his story and unbelievable ability to get things done is amazing. is a big book and almost too heavy to travel with but i will read it and died just

as the book. another one that came out about the congress that needs to be fixed hijacked by extremists and it will be a tough book to read. >> >> we want to introduce you to associate director of marketing and publicity at macmillan publishers in learning about the upcoming titles that you have. let's start with the former president of france.

>> my life in politics originally published in french now in english with a foreword by the president that details the history of u.s. french relations. it is a war might -- memoir, his time in algeria, political career, before and after world war ii, the year up as a whole. >> host: really the tour the u.s.? >> no. he is under the weather right now. and israel is probably the most controversial book. heat is what is referred to as a republican is really. he'd details the u.s. hasn't

been a close ally of focuses on their own concern and israel needs to focus on themselves. >> host: what does palgrave macmillan look for? >> nonfiction, local publisher that focus on all sides of the debate with of wide range of ideas as long as they are well argued. >> host: and more books are out. >> free market revolution and from the director of the ayn rand institute. they argue we should revert back to the libertarian principles of ayn rand. >> host: michelle fitzgerald, one more book to

ask about seven natgas. killing the american dream argues against in anti-emigration policies. we not only herder's os in economically but also experiencing a brain drain. >> host: is this published simultaneously in english and spanish? >> we are english publishing only 27 michelle but gerald from palgrave macmillan at books -- book expo america that is the industry's annual convention in new york city.